Judging from a leaflet I received today, the Lib-Dems seem to have their knickers in a bit of a twist over this. Can anyone fill me in on what's causing all the commotion? Is it something to do with the football pitches again?

Well, not mine personally but I do have friends in Anchorside Close although I havent spoken to them about this yet as I wasnt aware of the proposal. It is a quite little cul-de-sac of generally non-descript dwellings but they do fall victim of the neerdowells that habit a certain section of Chorlton just to the south of that street. The only saving grace is that its a cul-de-sac and the scummers have to go out the same way they came, which must put them off a tad.

However, this little follie should give them a lovely little escape route thanks to the RA.

So you have the Beards & Boots Brigade tramping all over your azaleas in the day and the Trackies & Trainers Troop round the rear at night.

Does the path run right through these peoples gardens? I guess it must for their azaleas to be trampled. That would be rather alarming. I was considering buying a house once until I discovered there was public footpath running across the garden right in front of the spam - sorry window. It certainly put me off buying it.

I am a resident of Anchorside Close (behind the Shell garage on Barlow Moor Road and cut off from Chorlton by Chorlton Brook) and a director of the management company that looks after our estate. Footpath 181 runs through our land and many of us are very much looking to being able to gain quicker and easier access to the Water Parks, Beech Road and Chorlton Green. It is a very short path that affects very few people, essentially allowing us to get across Chorlton Brook on foot. The alternative is a hairpin route that takes about 10 minutes. So Anchorside residents could get to Ivy Green in six minutes, instead of 16 (times worked out using Google Maps). As you can imagine, its very popular with us. But the Lib Dems in particular hate the idea.

Reading between the lines, it appears that the council are going to spend £50,000 to reopen the path because if they don't it looks likely they can be taken to court and forced to open the path - which will then end up costing a lot more than the original 50 grand.

I can't think that opening this path up will benefit that many people, there are probably better ways to spend the money.

RichardSorry to be pedantic, but you've not read between the lines. It is the clearly stated position that the council has a statutory obligation to maintain footpaths.

If you were reading between the lines, you'd see opposition Lib Dem councillors making out the council actually wants to open the path, so they can fabricate a story on Labour waste. That has inevitably led to Labour councillors saying 'but we don't want the council to open the path either'. But who is the council that will open the path, if not its councillors?

£50k is a lot of money to remove a couple of fences and clear some undergrowth on a very short path. So where does that number come from? When challenged the councillors say it is an officers' report from August 2009. The council refused a Freedom of Information request to release that report on the grounds that it is a draft and so is unreliable and misleading. But we know that the officers did outline a more ambitious proposal to re-route and extend the path along Chorlton Brook. The £50k is probably for this much more ambitious plan. We could probably open the stretch that matters for a about £5k.

If it is still a Right Of Way, then my understanding is that anyone is entitled to clear it so that they may 'pass and re-pass'. (unless there are statutary notices fixed at each end advising that the ROW is subject to an Order that closes it.)

According to the Lib-Dem propaganda sheet "Chorlton Focus", which was popped through my letterbox today, Victor Chamberlain is saying "Local Police (my emphasis) object to the reopening as it could could lead to increased crime and anti social behaviour".